Let me start out by saying I am totally against any type of crime involving shildren or even adults for that matter. However, does it seem convienent that she waits to bring a lawsuit until One had dies and one is in a home? How can they defend themselves against the charges? How can this be a fair trial?
I thought that we had a legal system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. The accuser\’s lawyer is stating that, it is not a fact of the case yet!
Here you go M….here\’s the proof you need…quoted directly from the article:
\”The lawsuit alleges the Jesuits became aware in about 1960 of Poole \”behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner\” with minor girls at a boarding school in Alaska and transferred him to Portland in 1964 with no apparent restrictions on contact with minors or females and without telling parents or parishioners of his past.
It said Poole was transferred to Portland despite the religious order having \”clear knowledge\” that he had a \”deviant sexual interest in young girls.\”\”
I thought we had a system in this country where you reported behavior like this. Otherwise you could be considered just as guilty as the party involved. You want justice???? Tell these churches to quite hiding these old pervs like they deserve some sort of leniancy because they hide behind the cross.
As a measure to encourage victims to come forward, many states have rape confidentiality statutes in place which prevent law enforcement and court personnel from revealing the identity of sex assault victims. I will not comment on Oregon law, but it may be correct to assume that Oregon has a similar confidentiality statute in place. Therefore, the identity of the complaining witness in this rape case is more likely to be protected by Oregon law.
Courtney – you may be dumb, naive or both but what you provided us are ALLEGATIONS written by the pltf atty and they should not be considered in any way, shape or form to be truthful or factual. That will a matter for the judge or the jury.
Yes, this is most likey a bogus claim and only the pltf and her atty will make money out of it. typical of ALL civil suits. gimme some free, easy money Mr. Deep Pocket.
I\’m a little confused. You just got done chastising Courtney for using the plaintiff atty\’s remarks as proof, but then made the statement that this is most likely a bogus claim. Exactly what FACTS are you using to make that statement?
I have to tell you, there is an epidemic on this site to blame the victims and make derogatory statements about them. We obviously have no idea whether or not this lawsuit has any merit, but to simply write it off as someone \”trying to get paid\” is irresponsible, uncompassionate and does a disservice to our society as a whole.
There is a theory about those people who attack victims. It talks about the comfort a person gets when they say things like, \”they were asking for it\” or \”they should have done this…\”. It makes them feel better because it can never happen to them, because they are always careful. I certainly hope that nothing horrible ever happens to you or someone you love, but if it ever does, I hope you don\’t experience the same sort of callusnous that you are displaying right now.
Courtney: I see that you mentioned, “…this is most likely a bogus claim…typical of ALL civil suits.” I find it a shame that you and others believe that lawyers are salivating after civil plaintiffs wanting to file frivolous claims, (like Pavlov’s dogs) seeking innocent defendants with big pockets to rip off. Do you know that we (lawyers) can be disbarred for filing frivolous claims? That is not all! Lawyers may be sanctioned by the Court for bringing a frivolous suit. Sanctions may be non monetary or monetary and may include paying the opposition to defend the frivolous suit. In Oregon, the statute governing wrongful litigation states, in pertinent part, \”In any civil action, suit, […] the court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorneys\’ fees appropriate in the circumstances to a party against whom a claim is asserted, […] upon a finding by the court that the party […] acted in bad faith, wantonly, or solely for oppressive reasons \” (emphasis added) ORS 20.105(1), 656.390. I\’m sure it would cost the plaintiff\’s attorney too much money, time, and would be too big of a risk to file a frivolous claim against the defendant in this matter. There more likely than not IS some merit to these allegations. But, as we all should know, simply reading news articles will never give us enough relevant factual information to help us make fair and just assumptions.
Let me start out by saying I am totally against any type of crime involving shildren or even adults for that matter. However, does it seem convienent that she waits to bring a lawsuit until One had dies and one is in a home? How can they defend themselves against the charges? How can this be a fair trial?
Why is it that the accused get named and not the accuser??
It\’s the same kind of fair the church used when transfering these men to different school without informing anyone.
I thought that we had a legal system based on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. The accuser\’s lawyer is stating that, it is not a fact of the case yet!
Here you go M….here\’s the proof you need…quoted directly from the article:
\”The lawsuit alleges the Jesuits became aware in about 1960 of Poole \”behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner\” with minor girls at a boarding school in Alaska and transferred him to Portland in 1964 with no apparent restrictions on contact with minors or females and without telling parents or parishioners of his past.
It said Poole was transferred to Portland despite the religious order having \”clear knowledge\” that he had a \”deviant sexual interest in young girls.\”\”
I thought we had a system in this country where you reported behavior like this. Otherwise you could be considered just as guilty as the party involved. You want justice???? Tell these churches to quite hiding these old pervs like they deserve some sort of leniancy because they hide behind the cross.
is the post fron Courtney..Courtney Smith ?
As a measure to encourage victims to come forward, many states have rape confidentiality statutes in place which prevent law enforcement and court personnel from revealing the identity of sex assault victims. I will not comment on Oregon law, but it may be correct to assume that Oregon has a similar confidentiality statute in place. Therefore, the identity of the complaining witness in this rape case is more likely to be protected by Oregon law.
Courtney – you may be dumb, naive or both but what you provided us are ALLEGATIONS written by the pltf atty and they should not be considered in any way, shape or form to be truthful or factual. That will a matter for the judge or the jury.
Yes, this is most likey a bogus claim and only the pltf and her atty will make money out of it. typical of ALL civil suits. gimme some free, easy money Mr. Deep Pocket.
Mary,
I\’m a little confused. You just got done chastising Courtney for using the plaintiff atty\’s remarks as proof, but then made the statement that this is most likely a bogus claim. Exactly what FACTS are you using to make that statement?
I have to tell you, there is an epidemic on this site to blame the victims and make derogatory statements about them. We obviously have no idea whether or not this lawsuit has any merit, but to simply write it off as someone \”trying to get paid\” is irresponsible, uncompassionate and does a disservice to our society as a whole.
There is a theory about those people who attack victims. It talks about the comfort a person gets when they say things like, \”they were asking for it\” or \”they should have done this…\”. It makes them feel better because it can never happen to them, because they are always careful. I certainly hope that nothing horrible ever happens to you or someone you love, but if it ever does, I hope you don\’t experience the same sort of callusnous that you are displaying right now.
Courtney: I see that you mentioned, “…this is most likely a bogus claim…typical of ALL civil suits.” I find it a shame that you and others believe that lawyers are salivating after civil plaintiffs wanting to file frivolous claims, (like Pavlov’s dogs) seeking innocent defendants with big pockets to rip off. Do you know that we (lawyers) can be disbarred for filing frivolous claims? That is not all! Lawyers may be sanctioned by the Court for bringing a frivolous suit. Sanctions may be non monetary or monetary and may include paying the opposition to defend the frivolous suit. In Oregon, the statute governing wrongful litigation states, in pertinent part, \”In any civil action, suit, […] the court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorneys\’ fees appropriate in the circumstances to a party against whom a claim is asserted, […] upon a finding by the court that the party […] acted in bad faith, wantonly, or solely for oppressive reasons \” (emphasis added) ORS 20.105(1), 656.390. I\’m sure it would cost the plaintiff\’s attorney too much money, time, and would be too big of a risk to file a frivolous claim against the defendant in this matter. There more likely than not IS some merit to these allegations. But, as we all should know, simply reading news articles will never give us enough relevant factual information to help us make fair and just assumptions.